Ok since noone of you nay sayers seems to have the guts - ill do it - creating a seperate post on the topic to try to save the proper "Can it be serviced" post.
shoot loose but i recommend you to read some history lessons in advance so i do not need to waste my time on most of you guys hopeless lack of historical knowledge.
history from the other thread will soon be available here.
steve hyde wrote:...but Bing Crosby is a dork from Tacoma.
"Let it Be" is a great rock album Nigel...Deal with it.
Steve
Nigel wrote:"Let it Bleed" by the Stones was better...
I am not going to give in to some losers that came here selling Motown to a bunch of kids as a spring board to their other junk to rule the musical world.
But when are we going to shoot that B&W stuff??
Call me.
Good Luck
S8 Booster wrote:
Nigel wrote:"Let it Bleed" by the Stones was better...
Good Luck
hopeless copy clo(w)n(e)s
s8hoot
marc wrote:
Nigel wrote:"Let it Bleed" by the Stones was better...
Good Luck
Great album!
S8 Booster wrote:ill exuse you guys for not being around when it happened and ill "say no mo" about that.
anywayhow, this may be the major example on where the stones were in the limelight at the time: (copy clowns)
Stones: "Their Satanic Majesties Request" released 8 December 1967
original: released June 1, 1967
Wikipedia abt "Their Satanic Majesties Request"
Released that December, Their Satanic Majesties Request was not well-received -- often viewed as a pretentious, poorly conceived attempt to outdo The Beatles and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.
may mention that Decca turned beatles down in 1962 because:
By this time, The Beatles had hired Brian Epstein as their manager and he signed them up for an audition with Decca Records. The head of Decca Records told The Beatles manager, "Guitar groups are on their way out Mr. Epstein.". The Beatles were devastated by their failed audition but Epstein secured them a contract with Parlophone Records. George Martin became their A&R Man. In August of 1962, Pete Best was replaced by Ringo Sta
when they later saw the success of the Beatles they desperately tried to find "copy clowns" which became the Stones and which as the rest surfed on the wakes of The Beatles.
apart from regulary cloning a beatles hit now and again their first real hit was written for them by lennon and mccartney and without the beatles this would have been just another of those groups youd never heard of.
s88mmhoot
tlatosmd wrote:That's right, the Stones might have released I wanna be your man earlier, but it had originally been written for A hard day's night where it appeared in the way it had been recorded before The Stones had done so. Turning out that The Beatles had actually deduced perfectly what The Stones's style would've been if they had had an original one, based on the old R'n'B standards they'd used to play. Thus, The Stones's style since I wanna be your man actually has been a unique one, but created by The Beatles, matching The Stones perfectly by intuition.
steve hyde wrote:
Nigel wrote:"Let it Bleed" by the Stones was better...
I am not going to give in to some losers that came here selling Motown to a bunch of kids as a spring board to their other junk to rule the musical world.
But when are we going to shoot that B&W stuff??
Call me.
Good Luck
....I see. This is rooted in a Detroit thing. The Beatles...Motown? I have to admit, I never did listed to early Beatles records, but you have to admit, after Sgt. Peppers something incredible happened musically.
Not sure how anyone might not hear that...
I'm doing a low-key shoot this weekend on Sunday in Fremont, but will have track and lighting equipment starting tonight if you guys want to use it for your spot that is fine...(sorry all this should be a PM)
Steve
S8 Booster wrote:the change 63 to 67 was formidable too.
anyway, i am later going to delete my off topic posts to save the thread - i think it is useful.
s88mmoot
tejas wrote:
Nigel wrote:"Let it Bleed" by the Stones was better...
Amen Nigel. The Stones are the Alpha and Omega, the end all and be all when it comes to "Rock and Roll".
And after 40+ years in the trenches they can still bring it.
I honestly believe there legacy has yet to be truly realised.
I can't wait to see them again for the fourth time this March.
tejas wrote:
S8 Booster wrote:ill exuse you guys for not being around when it happened and ill "say no mo" about that.
anywayhow, this may be the major example on where the stones were in the limelight at the time: (copy clowns)
Stones: "Their Satanic Majesties Request" released 8 December 1967
....
original: released June 1, 1967
....
Wikipedia abt "Their Satanic Majesties Request"
may mention that Decca turned beatles down in 1962 because:
when they later saw the success of the Beatles they desperately tried to find "copy clowns" which became the Stones and which as the rest surfed on the wakes of The Beatles.
apart from regulary cloning a beatles hit now and again their first real hit was written for them by lennon and mccartney and without the beatles this would have been just another of those groups youd never heard of.
s88mmhoot
Satanic Majesty's Request may seem a bit contrived and not their best overall effort (try Sticky Fingers) but 2000 Light Yearts From Home has to be one of the best psychedelic songs ever (with or without an attitude adjustment ie: LSD, orange sunshine, psilocybin etc.)
tejas wrote:
S8 Booster wrote:ill exuse you guys for not being around when it happened and ill "say no mo" about that.
anywayhow, this may be the major example on where the stones were in the limelight at the time: (copy clowns)
Stones: "Their Satanic Majesties Request" released 8 December 1967
....
original: released June 1, 1967
...
Wikipedia abt "Their Satanic Majesties Request"
may mention that Decca turned beatles down in 1962 because:
when they later saw the success of the Beatles they desperately tried to find "copy clowns" which became the Stones and which as the rest surfed on the wakes of The Beatles.
apart from regulary cloning a beatles hit now and again their first real hit was written for them by lennon and mccartney and without the beatles this would have been just another of those groups youd never heard of.
s88mmhoot
I can not believe you called the Stones "copy clowns". Would you please sell me $10.00 worth of whatever it is you are ingesting Booster beacause it must be some good shit. Your statement is undeserving of a warranted response.
marc wrote:The Stones Rock!
S8 Booster wrote:you guys still try to damage a useful thread i see.
i suggest you start a new ot topic on this and delete all your posts here as i will.
for all you guys lacking elementary historic knowledge: nobody tried to shoot down a stones plane ever.
As they went on to San Francisco, bullet holes were found in the wings of their private airliner. George Harrison said: "That's it. I'm not a Beatle any more."
(1966)
my last post on this.
s8hoot
[hmm will they get the full relevance of this? nooo i think i have add another few words: so enormous was the impact of the beatles that only a few words from them caused us citizens wanting to shoot down their airplane to get rid of the plague - but this is still only a faint scratch in history. unfortunately youre never gonna get it and.. do you think anyone would ever noticed or bothered what any of them ever said if it wasnt for the for ever unchallenged impact their music made?]
tlatosmd wrote:By the time The Beatles started touring Australia, people thought of them as messias, public gatherings demanded them to touch and thereby heal the sick and disabled.
audadvnc wrote:Oh, get over it. They were a fine Pop group, better than the Monkees, great. Don't treat them like the 2nd coming - John Lennon's point was that, at the height of their fame, people thought the Beatles had gained some mystical status. He thought that was crazy, why don't you?
S8 Booster wrote:i beg to differ in any which way. get a history update.
tlatosmd just pointed out one more of the insanity popping up around them and which in the end made them stop touring. do you want me to draw that one of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos when they almost got killed in the Philippines? now, was all of it generated by their music or not?
The Beatles July 4, 1966 Phillipines Concert
Rare..The Beatles Manila July 4, 1966 Philippines Handbill is about as rare as it gets in Beatles memorabilia, this Poster reprises the incredible July 4, 1966 day the Fab Four played a concert in Manila -- and touched off a diplomatic incident that for a few scary hours had their lives in danger. The story of the fiasco in the Phillippines is the one of the more colorful of Beatles legends, revolving around a comedy of errors. Seems the day before, without their knowledge, they were invited to join President and Mrs. Marcos at the Malacanang Palace at 11 AM. The boys only heard of a invitation to "pop in" at 4 PM, which they had to decline since that was the time of the concert at Rizal Stadium. Consequently, when word got out that they'd "stood up" Imelda Marcos, fans were enraged, promoter Ramon Ramos refused to pay them for the gig, and they received death threats. Beatles manager Brian Epstein called a press conference to apologize but the signal was jammed (reputedly by the government). The next day, the band tried to depart the country but were given scant security and upon leaving the hotel were attacked and kicked by irate Filipinos. Then at the airport a mob came at them. Luggage in hand, they had to hurdle up a broken escalator trying to get away. In the melee, Ringo sparined an ankle and others in the entourage were injured. Finally, they were refused to get on their plane until they paid a bogus $18,000 tax bill and resolved other red tape obstacles. Only when they were in the air did Ferdinand Marcos officially absolve the band, hours late. The Beatles vowed never tor return to the country, and had no trouble keeping their word.
they changed the world - they ruled the world - through their music - get over with it.
tlatosmd wrote:
The actual musical rivals of John, Paul, George, and Ringo were Brian Wilson's Beach Boys.
there is no way to be good/best if you have no one to measure up against.
those groups fulfilled that and contributed both ways. for the nay sayers - its no talk about copying but insspiration - ref Brian Wilson.
whatta joy it was/is. Like being of the middle of a joy-ride war. including the other artists of the time too. they more or less all contributed as well by making this enormeous wide range musical never ending orgasm of creative music.
Rape
In November 1968 work began on one of one of John & Yoko's most ambitious film ventures, a 75-minute mini-feature called Rape. It starred Eva Majlata, a 21 year old Hungarian actress who couldn't speak English. She cannot escape the prying attentions of the camera which follows her around the streets of London, through a park, allowing her no privacy and almost causing her to walk into the path of a truck. She attempts to escape in a taxi, but is still followed. She is eventually cornered in an apartment from which she apparently cannot escape and her tearful pleas to the camera remain ignored. Rape was shot when John and Yoko were both at Great Charlotte Street Hospital following Yoko's miscarriage. The cameraman was Nick Knowland, who worked on most of John and Yoko's productions.
The film received its world premiere on Austrian Television on 31st March 1969. That year it was also shown at the Montreux Television Festival and the Mannheim Film Festival. A day after the Austrian TV broadcast John and Yoko held a press conference in Vienna. John commented: "We are showing how all of us are exposed and under pressure in our contemporary world. This isn't just about the Beatles. What is happening to this girl on the screen is happening in Biafra, Vietnam, everywhere." The theme of the relentless, clinical camera lens, 'raping' the privacy of individuals or groups for the entertainment of the viewing public intrigued critic Willie Frischauer, who wrote in the Evening Standard; "This film does for the age of television what Franz Kafka's The Trial did for the age of totalitarianism.
As for the impact of the Beatles, I remember hearing that when they appeared on the Ed Sullivan show there was *no* recorded crime in New York City for the 60 minute duration of the show.....a unique statistic. No other hour in NYC's history has no recorded crime.
Today, I work in a school with kids who have been refugeed from awful places such as Afghanistan, Ethiopia...you get the picture. There is not one of them can't hum at least a couple of Beatles tunes. Remember virtually all of them were born twenty years *after* the four split!
The influence of the Beatles is staggaring. It is not an understatement to say that they changed the world....twice....with "yeah, yeah, yeah" and with Sgt. Pepper. There was nothing quite like the phenomenon that was the Beatles before and has been nothing since.
The government says that by 2010 30% of us will be fat....I am merely a trendsetter
While the Beatles (mainly John and Paul) had talent, the real difference was in how they were produced, compared to other bands of that era. Martin pretty much redefined the entire approach to producing and marketing a band and I think it is fair to say that, without Martin, the Beatles may have simply faded into history as "just another band". This would not be so much a reflection of their talent but, rather, proof that a good musician with an empty hat on the street corner isn't going to change the world, regardless of talent.
The Rolling Stones are proof of the magic that can happen in the studio if produced correctly. Commercially successful but asthetically anemic; Jagger had a unique voice but, let's face it, he can't really sing. Keith Richards sort of plays guitar but most teenage garage band guitar hot shots can blow him away these days. And, to be fair, Paul and John's voices were not that terrific and they were only average musicians, technically. Left to their own devices, the Stones would have been no more successful than the Beatles but the Beatles had Martin and that really made all the difference in the world, IMHO.
In their later days, every member of the Beatles at one time or another went to Martin and asked him about "making albums like we used to". Even they recognized the magic of how he hand handled them, creatively, but internal politics of the group prevented that from happening again.
The Stones had their briliant musician: Brian Jones.
And Paul has proven to be the best musician from The Fab 4.
Followed by (under estimated) George.
But nothing beats the voices of The Beach Boys.
(maybe the Four Frenchman, hehe)
And the genious of Brian Wilson, at a younger age.
I mean.. the structure of some Beach Boys songs...
And do not forget the infuence of black, American music!
Motown, Stax etc...
Stevie Wonder!
Marvin Gaye!
Me!
Fred.
my website:
http://www.super-8.be
about film transfering:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_k0IKckACujwT_fZHN6jlg
A must for the real fan!
I was forced to to listen to the entire box -several times- by my brother. Otherwise... I would have been punished, hehe.
(By listening to the Stones for an entire day -the recent stuff-, haha)
Very strange... Because my brother was born in 1960, so he was a little boy when the Beatles had the most succes. Maybe they 'brainwashed' him?
Very nice stuff indeed!
I like specific the raw 'Revolver' and 'Rubber Soul' songs the most;
Fred.
Last edited by VideoFred on Mon Jan 23, 2006 3:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
my website:
http://www.super-8.be
about film transfering:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_k0IKckACujwT_fZHN6jlg
Also remember something happened with the Beatles that hadn't happened much with "pop" music....they and Martin learned to make albums that were real albums, rather than merely a collection of good songs thrown together. That was something else Brian Wilson understood.
Actually the only artist I can think of who was putting together proper albums before that time was Count Basie...though there may well have been others.
The CD seems to have a lot to answer for. Faced with the chance to put 65+ minutes of music out, it seems for over a decade bands decided they *had* to make each album last 60+ minutes. They lost the ability to really piece and structure an actual album together.
Pet Sounds really is perfectly constructed, and works best with a small pause in the middle (to turn over the LP). Not a concept album as such but held together by a loose conceptual connection between most of the songs...with Sloop John B in the middle as emotional relief.
Interesting to read on BBC news today that "Wouldn't It Be Nice" is supposedly about Brian's crush on then-wife Marilyn's sister...I once sent that song to a special lady who I really shouldn't have had emotional feelings for as I was already married!!
The government says that by 2010 30% of us will be fat....I am merely a trendsetter
